Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-09-2014, 05:02 PM   #166
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I keep coming back to the "good enough" argument. Average people don't want to print 30 inches on a side (most don't print at all). They don't want files that are amenable to photoshopping (they don't photo shop). They don't even want crazy high iso.
So it sounds like you've rationalized away the existence of the APS-C market. Clearly people don't "need" anything better than a $100 point and shoot and thus M4/3 and APS-C sales are just a figment of our imaginations.

QuoteQuote:
They just want a camera that is more responsive than their point and shoot and allows them to shoot Johnny and Susie at their soccer games and at Christmas parties, or whatever. A little noise doesn't bother them. As like as not, they will drop some crazy instagram filter on their photo and destroy it before they up load it facebook. But hey, they will be happy with four thirds or APS-C and unlikely to be happy with full frame, because it costs too much and is perceived as too big to carry around.
Full frame really isn't bigger than APS-C, you're really reaching. If we pit the Canon 6D against the Pentax K-7, the K-7 is 1cm smaller (0.4 in) in width and height (it's just as deep). That's peanuts in terms of form factor. My Canon 40D was exactly the same size as a full-frame 6D. For that matter a Sony A7 is considerably smaller than any of these. Certainly some people will want ultra-compact bodies - but not a lot (given smartphones, etc), and those people are already buying something like the Fuji Xpro series, or just a plain old P+S. Not DSLRs, which have never been the best for minimizing size.

"Costs too much" is a very short-sighted argument. Again, does APS-C "cost too much" versus the P+S sensors that would be more appropriate for most of our uses, and then why do massive quantities of APS-C cameras sell every year?

In the real world, homo economicus is an extremely wrongheaded abstraction. People are not beep boop robots who determine that a Pentax Q or a Nikon J1 will satisfy their photographic needs and that any excess money spent would be "wasted", they have "fun budgets" and will use a reasonable quantity of it to go buy a nice tool that they will enjoy using. If FF begins to fall enough that people can splurge, or flip some gear and transition from APS-C to FF, then the consumer market will begin to take up full frame. It's really already happening in the secondary (used) market, once FF cameras drop in price a little further this effect will begin in the primary (new) market.

Whoever said FF is a "coming technology" is exactly right. APS-C didn't saturate the market in a day, for a lot of years 1/1.x" type sensors reigned supreme and only a well-heeled family could own an APS-C for their snapshots. FF is in the exact same place, in another 5 years FF will be normal and APS-C will be the product for the money conscious ("cheapskates") and people who want extra reach for birds/sports, like M4/3 is today.


Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 01-09-2014 at 05:43 PM.
01-09-2014, 05:30 PM   #167
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
So it sounds like you've rationalized away the existence of the APS-C market. Clearly people don't "need" anything better than a $100 point and shoot and thus M4/3 and APS-C sales are just a figment of our imaginations.



Full frame really isn't bigger than APS-C, you're really reaching. If we pit the Canon 6D against the Pentax K-7, the K-7 is 1cm smaller (0.4 in) in width and height (it's just as deep). That's peanuts in terms of form factor. My Canon 40D is exactly the same size as a full-frame 6D. Certainly some people will want ultra-compact bodies - but not a lot (given smartphones, etc), and those people are already buying something like the Fuji Xpro series, or just a plain old P+S. Not DSLRs, which have never been the best for minimizing size.

"Costs too much" is a very short-sighted argument. Again, does APS-C "cost too much" versus the P+S sensors that would be more appropriate for most of our uses, and then why do massive quantities of APS-C cameras sell every year?

In the real world, homo economicus is an extremely wrongheaded abstraction. People are not beep boop robots who determine that a Pentax Q or a Nikon J1 will satisfy their photographic needs and that any excess money spent would be "wasted", they have "fun budgets" and will use a reasonable quantity of it to go buy a nice tool that they will enjoy using. If FF begins to fall enough that people can splurge, or flip some gear and transition from APS-C to FF, then the consumer market will begin to take up full frame. It's really already happening in the secondary (used) market, once FF cameras drop in price a little further this effect will begin in the primary (new) market.
A significant number of people would be happy with a Q or J1. "Good enough" is not something that has any form of equivalency between people (unlike glass). What I am satisfied with would tear you up to shoot with, but I am OK with it. And that's OK with me, if not with you.

Personally, I am more used to how lenses behave on APS-C than I am on full frame at this point. I haven't shot a full frame camera for eight years. Yet, there is a stridency in the voices of those telling me that I need full frame to be satisfied and that I am wasting time and money shooting with a lousy APS-C camera. I just don't buy it. As I have said before, the difference between the full frame photos that I see on Flickr and the APS-C photos I see has to do with (a) the quality of the glass used, (b) the skill of the photographer and the (c) post processing.

Even when there is a posting of a full frame camera and an APS-C camera shot at f4, there is a cry of "foul" from the denizens of the forum, because "of course the APS-C photo looks sharper because it has more depth of field." Oh well, APS-C is sharper or less sharp. The glass is worse. Whatever. It is good enough for me and I guess that's enough.


01-09-2014, 06:26 PM   #168
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you say something over and over to someone it isn't true for, it's still not true for them.You don't have to desire narrow DoF photographs. You could just as easily think as I do, that the wider DoF on APS-c of almost every lens is an advantage. Because we're shooting a lot of images where the issue is not achieving narrow DoF but getting as much DOF as we can and as much sharpness as we can in the same image. You don't want people to ignore your mindset. But you continually ignore there's and revel in telling them, their view point isn't valid. With so little respect for the experience of others, you're hardly in a position to be asking for equal recognition for other.

The simple fact is for some shooters, narrow DoF matters
For some shooters wide DOF, and shooting longer with lighter glass matters.

I wouldn't try and say you shouldn't shoot the way you do and pretend that my way is the only legitimate way of doing it, but every time you claim more capability for FF, you're wrong. Shooting with my 60-250 I have as much subject magnification as D800 user shooting with about a 400mm lens. Because reach and magnification are important to me, using a lens on APS-c has more capability. IN the crop area, I can get more resolution with APS-c and my A-400 than a D-800 with with a 660 mm lens.

SO which lens and body is more capable depends on what you're shooting. You can't just say "Given the same capability, you're wrong.". You have to define the context. In one context he's wrong, in another context you're wrong.

Personally I shy away from making this type of statement because there is no one liner that encapsulates "the right answer." As I used to tell my students, "there often is no 'right answer', but sometimes there's an answer that's right for you." The right answer is way more complicated than a simple assertion of right or wrong. To imply that it is, it's impossible not to put your own preferences and shooting practices in the position of being more important than other's. That's just rude.

On another note... I started this thread an I've attempted to read the posts and hear everyone's point of view... but it's been 11 pages, it's been way more than I thought it would be, and I'm ready to move on to the next topic, feel free to keep it going as long as you find it interesting. However i can't promise I'll be here to respond to anything past this point.
I'm sorry, but I don't even have time to read your posts any more. Let me know if you'd like to do something other than strawmans, etc., and I'll start reading again.
01-09-2014, 06:39 PM   #169
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,531
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I'm sorry, but I don't even have time to read your posts any more. Let me know if you'd like to do something other than strawmans, etc., and I'll start reading again.
Nice...

01-09-2014, 11:08 PM - 1 Like   #170
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,175
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And ƒ4 on FF does not have all the advantages of 2.8 glass even if you are thinking about equivalency.
This is factually wrong.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but if you are criticising others for their views, please don't misrepresent their views or make incorrect statements about the subject.

It seems you have not read the sources I suggested for you to read. Otherwise, you shouldn't continue to think that exposure (as opposed to the total amount of light) is responsible for image quality.

In particular,
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
AF will be better,
That depends on the AF module.

The AF module's light sensitivity and aperture are independent from the sensor size.

An FF lens at f/4 collects as much light as an APS-C lens at f/2.8 so an appropriately designed AF module for the FF camera will not be disadvantaged.

On the contrary, due to the higher enlargement required for APS-C, any (inevitable ) small AF errors that are within the AF system's tolerances will be magnified for the APS-C image.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
and for exposure an ƒ4 FF lens is a stop behind an ƒ2.8 lens on both systems.
Correct, except that "exposure" is not the relevant variable here.

The crucial variable is "total amount of light" and that is the same for both lenses.

Please get the idea out of your head that "same exposure" means anything. A cheap Q lens can achieve an "f/1.8" exposure but the amount of light captured by that is minuscule in comparison to that of an FF f/1.8 lens.

Do you think Ansel Adams dragged up big and heavy equipment up mountains because he was after a "shallow DOF" aesthetic? He certainly wasn't. He used large format cameras because large formats produce better image quality.
01-10-2014, 02:52 AM   #171
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Nice...
It's harsh, but less harsh than just ignoring you IMO. I just don't have the time to read your dissertations and correct you.
01-10-2014, 07:08 AM   #172
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,531
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It's harsh, but less harsh than just ignoring you IMO. I just don't have the time to read your dissertations and correct you.
Nothing there to correct, maybe the logic is finally starting to sink in.

QuoteQuote:
The AF module's light sensitivity and aperture are independent from the sensor size.
Then why does my AF stop working on my A-400 when I use it with the 2x converter in low light? Why doesn't that separate AF unit continue to function, when shooting with my 18-135 I can shoot into almost total blackness. This is not a theoretical argument for me. I base what I am saying on practical observation.

QuoteQuote:
An FF lens at f/4 collects as much light as an APS-C lens at f/2.8 so an appropriately designed AF module for the FF camera will not be disadvantaged.
Talk about factually wrong, ƒ 2.8 collects the same amount of light, in terms of density of distribution along the film plane. If the AF sensor are the same size then they receive the same amount of light, and even if they aren't. You have to ask yourself if this is true, how does the K-5 and K-3 achieve such amazing low light focus. You guys spin this stuff and throw it out there, but it makes me wonder if you actually use real cameras, or if you just read about them.

A 2.8 lens collects exactly the same amount of light be it on an FF or APS-c. But on APS-c when using an FF lens, half the light doesn't reach the sensor, because the sensor is smaller. That has nothing to do with what the lens does. And the number of photons hitting any part of the sensor in a 1mm x 1mm area is the same on any system.

From the old days when we used light meters, everyone of us knows. You use the same light meter for 35mm or 8x10 film and every camera in between.. For exposure, if your light meter says ƒ8 at 100th of second, it's the same for every camera of every size. There is absolutely no way, ƒ2.8 on one system is equivalent to ƒ4 on another. That is a misuse of equivalency, it comes from not understanding what an ƒ-stop really is, and until you figure it out, it's going to jump up and bite you every time you post on the topic.

QuoteQuote:
Do you think Ansel Adams dragged up big and heavy equipment up mountains because he was after a "shallow DOF" aesthetic? He certainly wasn't. He used large format cameras because large formats produce better image quality.
Ansel Adams was part of the ƒ64 club, so, his preferred shooting aperture was ƒ64, hardly the guy to bring up if arguing for the narrow DoF argument. so if you're going to talk about equivalency and the need for less DoF, I can hear the man laughing. You're talking about the wrong guy. And he shot 8x10 film. The crop factor of MF film to 8x10 film is approximately 1:12 approx. FF 1:24, APS-c 1:36.

I'm an 8 x 10 film guy at heart. Trained on the system, loved the images. And I'm telling you, as a guy who worked with those really high quality images, I don't see much difference between APS-c and FF. They're both tiny. And on an 8x10 film camera,shooting with fast film (at high ISO) you could still get visible grain.

I have never said that larger sensors don't produce better images. What I say over and over again, is that a 1:1.5 crop is pretty insignificant. Look at the numbers above, and you'll maybe understand the point. Numbers like 1:12 are significant. Especially since with a 8X10 film camera, you had to reduce the size of the image to produce a 4x5 print. Lenses could be pretty bad because the image wasn't magnified much and you tried to shoot at ƒ64, because with that size negative, diffraction isn't really an issue very often. Comparing FF to Ansel Adams camera is probably the misrepresentation of the century. A 1:1.5 crop, compared to a 1:24 crop.

Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 07:17 AM.
01-10-2014, 07:49 AM   #173
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
This is factually wrong.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but if you are criticising others for their views, please don't misrepresent their views or make incorrect statements about the subject.

It seems you have not read the sources I suggested for you to read. Otherwise, you shouldn't continue to think that exposure (as opposed to the total amount of light) is responsible for image quality.

In particular,

That depends on the AF module.

The AF module's light sensitivity and aperture are independent from the sensor size.

An FF lens at f/4 collects as much light as an APS-C lens at f/2.8 so an appropriately designed AF module for the FF camera will not be disadvantaged.

On the contrary, due to the higher enlargement required for APS-C, any (inevitable ) small AF errors that are within the AF system's tolerances will be magnified for the APS-C image.


Correct, except that "exposure" is not the relevant variable here.

The crucial variable is "total amount of light" and that is the same for both lenses.

Please get the idea out of your head that "same exposure" means anything. A cheap Q lens can achieve an "f/1.8" exposure but the amount of light captured by that is minuscule in comparison to that of an FF f/1.8 lens.

Do you think Ansel Adams dragged up big and heavy equipment up mountains because he was after a "shallow DOF" aesthetic? He certainly wasn't. He used large format cameras because large formats produce better image quality.
I feel like we are straining at gnats. The only reason why we have these discussions is because there is a common mount between full frame and APS-C. This is the reason why full frame doesn't get compared to medium format nearly as often.

I have no idea what Ansel Adams would use today, but I would guess digital medium format and not 35mm full frame.

I do think that with regard to shutter speed an f2.8 is f2.8, regardless of the format and generally, that is what is important to me. If I use an adapter and mount a medium format lens on my K3, it doesn't matter that the lens "sees" a lot more light that never gets used by the sensor. The lens just doesn't change based on the format you are using it on. It just is.

What size are you all printing at that you are seeing these big differences in the formats? Do you have huge monitors or, is it just on pixel peeping? Because I print pretty big and the prints are sharp at normal viewing distance, but if you all are printing and taking a loupe to the prints, then that is another story.

01-10-2014, 08:42 AM   #174
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,819
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
From the old days when we used light meters, everyone of us knows. You use the same light meter for 35mm or 8x10 film and every camera in between.. For exposure, if your light meter says ƒ8 at 100th of second, it's the same for every camera of every size. There is absolutely no way, ƒ2.8 on one system is equivalent to ƒ4 on another. That is a misuse of equivalency, it comes from not understanding what an ƒ-stop really is, and until you figure it out, it's going to jump up and bite you every time you post on the topic.
Exactly! Well said. The thing is that equivalists (yes, I just made this term up) start at the idea that we want to make a photograph that looks exactly the same as a FF. And then they focus on FoV and DoF! Two things that are important, but really shouldn't be the base for comparisons, as its wrong to treat them as the "constant". And the other mistake they make is that they think that someone shooting with crop sensor is really trying to imitate the mythical full frame. But we aren't. We accept that crop sensor is different and we do not want or need it to give us the exact same results (in terms of DoF, FoV, ..) as a bigger sensor would. And we don't hate the FF, either, or medium format for that matter. Its just different tools and each has its pros and cons.
01-10-2014, 10:23 AM   #175
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
We accept that crop sensor is different and we do not want or need it to give us the exact same results (in terms of DoF, FoV, ..) as a bigger sensor would.
But a FF does give you the same results as an APS-C sensor would (albeit at higher resolution), it's not a matter of wanting to or not...
01-10-2014, 11:06 AM   #176
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,819
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
But a FF does give you the same results as an APS-C sensor would (albeit at higher resolution), it's not a matter of wanting to or not...
Nope, because part of the result is having to carry around a bigger camera and bigger lenses, doing more processing/cropping. FF also often have a slower burst mode and a lower pixel density (which is good for noise, but not great for imitating the APSC tele advantage)
01-10-2014, 11:16 AM   #177
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Nope, because part of the result is having to carry around a bigger camera and bigger lenses
Bigger camera? Sometimes? Usually? How big is the 6D compared to the 7D? about the same to my knowledge. The mount is the same of course.


Bigger lenses? Not usually.

Dr. Camera: APS-C lenses aren't smaller, aren't lighter, and aren't cheaper.


If pixels are a problem I'm cropping too far...
01-10-2014, 11:27 AM   #178
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Nope, because part of the result is having to carry around a bigger camera and bigger lenses, doing more processing/cropping. FF also often have a slower burst mode and a lower pixel density (which is good for noise, but not great for imitating the APSC tele advantage)
That's not entirely true... a lot of the lenses you are using on the crop sensor can be used on the FF sensor as well.
As a matter of fact, a lot of people are using legacy glass that was built for FF, on crop sensors. So I don't see how you need a "bigger" lens.
For what do you think all those nice old Takumars you guys are using were built for!? Are they really that big on your crop camera!?

As for achieving the "magnification" of the cropped sensor you can always crop the FF image if you really want to and bring it at the same "magnification" of the crop sensor.

Now is true, in order to fill your FF frame with the same object located very, very far, you will need "longer" lenses and so, arguably, bigger lens.

As far as I'm concerned, in a very simplistic way. FF offers both worlds in 1 package... the power of a crop sensor (since you can always crop your image to mimic "magnification") and then all the other ups that comes with the FF.

As for cameras being bigger... maybe now they are slightly bigger... but time and technology improvements will take them down in size.

Last edited by mrNewt; 01-10-2014 at 11:53 AM.
01-10-2014, 11:47 AM   #179
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,531
Original Poster
I ran through some tests today, and as I stated earlier, it's the noise that could possibly drive me to FF... I haven't had a chance to confirm this on anything other than my own cameras, but I'm seeing a noise reduction with the K-3. Someone somewhere predicted this was an inevitable effect os smaller sensors. I don't remember who or what thread, so don't demand a reference, You won't get it. I'd like to see some results for a few more cameras, and I meat send my results off to Pentax to see if they consider this to be typical...but as of today, this is where I stand. To me, the ISO 1600 uncropped image is acceptable, the K-3 1600 ISO image is not...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/248079-k3-vs-k5-high-iso-n...ml#post2645063

Here's what I'm talking about if you don't care to see the whole thread.





They may not look that different to some, but everyone has to draw the line somewhere and this is my line. IN this case the images were shot with an 60-250, but, I could take the same image with my A-400 and FF, and if the noise was a stop better, I'd have an image I'd use, instead of one I wouldn't, without buying anything but a new body. I suspect if I ever pick up an FF body, it will be for this reason. That's of course really simplified, and there would be a lot of other considerations, but picking up a $1500 Pentax FF even at 24 Mp, just for low light might be an option, if I didn't have to buy anything else. For $3000, I'll just buy the Sigma 300 2.8.

Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 11:55 AM.
01-10-2014, 11:52 AM   #180
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Bigger camera? Sometimes? Usually? How big is the 6D compared to the 7D? about the same to my knowledge. The mount is the same of course.


Bigger lenses? Not usually.

Dr. Camera: APS-C lenses aren't smaller, aren't lighter, and aren't cheaper.


If pixels are a problem I'm cropping too far...
Fuji, Pentax DA ltd, and DA* 2..8 zooms show us what can be done if you design APS-C dedicated lenses. The pentax lens pricing is just a (bad) marketing choice, not a cost driven choice, DA* zooms and DA ltd lenses used to be 2/3 the price of Canikon FF lenses which covered the same focal range at the same speed. They don't cost any more to produce, they are just changing their pricing strategy. It is unfortunate for us but it doesn't mean that a similar change isn't inevitably going to happen for other brands if the margins just got too thin.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, camera, cost, curve, dslr, ff, ff sensors, film, photography, price, prices, scale, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggestion Stop the FF infection ... of the other threads - read on. jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 59 03-18-2015 11:30 AM
K-5II or K-5IIs - which one will you choose if the price is the same? frank Pentax K-5 54 06-20-2013 03:45 PM
This Foron Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 10 06-12-2009 04:14 PM
This Forum Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 45 06-09-2009 06:44 PM
Rumors confirmed! The new Pentax will be FF! B051LjKo Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-11-2008 04:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top